Episode 2902 CWSA 07/19/25

Good to see you.

There's room up front.

All right, let me get all the comments working and then we're ready for the most special podcast of all time, says me.

All right, almost there.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that no one can can understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shelter sty canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Go.

Oh, that's good stuff.

All right.

Thank you, Paul.

Well, it's Saturday and as tradition requires, um Owen Gregorian will do a spaces event on X right after the show.

So after the show, few minutes after, you'll be able to find a active spaces event.

That's the audio feature within X where people can talk to each other and you can talk about what we talked about or something different.

I suppose about the news.

Uh, so that'll be directly after the show.

Well, I wonder if there are any scientific studies that didn't need to be done because they could just ask me.

Huh.

All right.

Here's one.

Uh Fox News is reporting Khloe Quill writes that there is a new study that shows that uh overeating is roughly um God there's one person in my life who only texts me when I'm on live stream.

How in the world?

Anyway, so there's a study that says that overeating is 10 times more important than exercise.

So if you want to lose weight, were you aware that exercise doesn't make that much difference?

Exercise is very good for your health, but it's not really much of a weight loss thing.

Now, what could they have done instead of doing a big study?

Well, they could read my books.

I wrote 15 years ago when I told you because science has known this for a long long time.

It's not something I made up but this is one of the most well understood phenomena in all of science that what you eat is related to your weight but not really your exercise.

exercise is good for its own benefits, but it doesn't really help you lose weight too much.

Um, according to the new atlas, broaden Thompson is writing that there's a universal cancer vaccine that's uh coming up now.

So far it's only in animal trials but it's based on the believe it or not the mRNA platform and apparently they have successfully um used this vaccination this cancer vaccination uh on one kind of cancer glyobblastoma and apparently it works and instead of killing the cancer directly what it does is it boosts your body's ability to do it on its own.

And they've determined, at least with animal studies, that apparently the same technique would work with all cancers.

So, they still have to do animal studies and then they would have to do human studies.

But it turns out that there might be a cure for all cancer.

that's just a few years away.

Now, I know I know that this uh there's a cure for cancer around the bend has been the same story since I was probably in my teens and it hasn't been right yet.

So, why would it be right this time?

Well, it would be right this time because I need it to be right.

So, if I can just stay alive for a few more years, maybe I can get into the uh you know, into some kind of a test.

Maybe.

So, I have two words.

Hurry up.

Uh I'm going to need this a little bit faster than your usual schedule.

Well, Breitbart News is reporting that uh there were 85 Minnesota autism clinics where they specialize in treating autistic children, I think mostly.

Um, and they're under investigation for millions of dollars in Medicaid fraud.

So, 85 autism uh clinics.

I didn't even know there was such a thing.

And apparently they were claiming they did some treatments that they didn't do massively.

They were claiming that.

And so they're getting pinched on that.

Now, how many times have I told you on my live streams that everything that can be corrupted is whenever you have a situation where a lot of money is involved, check.

A lot of people are involved, check.

And there's enough time that's gone by for people to figure out how to cheat it.

Under those conditions, which appear to be all present in this autism clinic story, under those conditions, how often is there massive corruption?

And the answer is every time.

Every time.

If you have those conditions, lots of money, lots of people, a lot of time has gone by, it's always fraudulent.

You want another example?

Well, uh, Cash Patel, head of the FBI, announced indictments for these children's nutrition programs.

Um, also in Minnesota, what was the other one?

Minnesota.

Okay.

Minnesota seems to be a a hot bed of corruption.

You don't really expect Minnesota to be the most corrupt state, but uh Michael Chance is writing in Brebar News that according to Cash Patel, the uh Minnesota children's nutrition programs scammed millions in CO funds.

So, the children's nut nutrition programs involved a lot of people, a lot of money, and apparently enough time went by where people could figure out how to cheat it.

So, yes, it would appear that 100% of the time that it's possible to have corruption.

Well, there's corruption 100% of the time.

Well, according to uh Neielson data, You.

Tube is the most watched video on your big TV.

Now, you might say, "But it's been most watched for a long time on my portable device, but now it's also the most watched content on your big TV set." Um, and I would I would say that that makes sense in my life.

Um, I probably watch I might watch more You.

Tube than anything else.

Maybe not, but it's moving in that direction.

Um, however, I don't know if you've noticed this, You.

Tube is being completely destroyed by AI.

U, now it might be just the personal recommendations that come to me, but I used to love listening to all these history You.

Tubes.

you know, it' be like the ancient Mesopotamians or whatever.

And I would love those.

But, uh, I guess the people who are good at AI figured out they can have AI make that kind of content, some historical thing about something you've heard of.

And they are so boring.

Oh my god, they're boring.

And most of the content that when I when I open You.

Tube, most of it is AI.

And there's I don't think there was even one AI content that I got anything out of.

They're they're all just just so generic.

And so You.

Tube has a problem.

They're going to have to police all the AI.

I think in a horrible news, I don't know the details of this yet, but a vehicle uh apparently somebody drove a vehicle into a crowd in Santa Monica Boulevard and 20 people who were injured and and several killed, I guess, so far.

So, I don't yet know.

me.

Of course, it's an emergency.

Uh yeah, the the the one person who only texts me during my live stream, always an emergency.

It's like, "Are you awake?

It's an emergency." All right.

Well, you have to wait.

Um so, we don't know if that's a terrorist or a crazy person or bad driving or what that is, but we'll find out.

the uh story about Stephen Coar getting u fired uh from his job at the the Tonight Show, the Late Show.

What was his show called?

The Late Tonight Show or I don't know.

I never watched it.

But uh now people are suspecting the Democrats are that maybe it wasn't about economics.

This this is such a this is such a Democrat point of view.

Uh even though the show was losing $40 million a year, people thought that the reason probably wasn't economics.

There was rather trying to make Trump happy so the Trump administration will approve a merger um that Paramount wants to do with uh some other company.

And I thought to myself, are Democrats that economically ignorant that they think somebody would want to keep a show on TV that was losing $40 million a year and didn't look like it would ever get better?

Probably would only get worse.

So it, you know, it makes me wonder, is this one of those things where the Democrats know it's not really a good attack on Trump, but they don't care because it's something and they don't have anything else.

Like, well, why don't we make up some stupid hoax about Stephen Cobear?

However, I have to admit there's a little bit there.

Wasn't there a similar rumor that when Tucker Carlson got canned by Fox News that the reason had something to do with a lawsuit and maybe there was a side deal that said, "All right, we we'll settle this lawsuit." But then somebody said, "The only way we'll accept it is if you also fire Tucker Carlson.

So sometimes there's a little bit of a side deal.

I don't know if it was true with Tucker and I certainly don't know if it's true with Stephen Colbear, but the Democrats are um I think they're justified in asking the question, was this part of the deal?

But if you're losing $40 million a year and you get cancelled, I feel like there's another reason that's really good.

$40 million a year.

However, the good news is that uh there's already a replacement for Steven Colbear.

Um, Stephen Colbear's show will run through May and uh, May is also the end of Jerome Powell's um, stay at the uh, the Fed.

So Jerome Powell, whose uh, nickname is Too Late uh, will be hosting a new show called the Too Late Show.

How many of you believe that's true?

Anybody?

No, that's not true.

But it's funny that the show will run through May, which coincidentally is when Jerome Powell um is going to be out of his job and that his nickname is Too Late.

The Too Late Show.

Come on.

That's funny.

The The thing about doing jokes on live stream is that there's a delay before I see the LOL's come through.

So, I'm like, did that land?

Do I need to reward that one?

Because I thought it was a winner.

Well, the House of Representatives has approved the uh $9 billion budget cuts that Trump wanted, and that would include cuts to NPR and PBS.

Now, it doesn't put them out of business.

It just reduces one of their multiple sources of income.

Um, I love how good Trump is at touting his successes.

He is really good at it.

And remember the uh criticisms that were always being given to Biden.

They'd say, you know, the real problem is that uh Democrats are not doing a good job of telling people about their successes.

And then Trump gets in office.

There's never been anybody better in the history of presidents or maybe in the history of everything that's ever happened anywhere in any way who's been better at touting his successes.

Trump is really, really good at it.

Now, he has a lot of successes to tout.

That helps.

Um, but here's another one.

You know, the $9 billion isn't going to make a big deal to the the deficit.

It's not enough to make a dent in it.

But doesn't it make you feel good to know that there was something something finally that reduced some part of a budget associated with the the country.

Now, it's not a big deal, but the way it feels is bigger than how big a deal it is.

And that's what Trump gets right every time.

He will make you feel that things are moving in the right direction.

And what have I taught you about economics?

The most important thing you need to know about economics, aside from the fact that economists are only guessing, that maybe that's rule one.

Even the professionals are pretty much just guessing.

You know, there's a reason they always disagree on everything.

However, the other big rule of economics is that economics are driven by expectations.

And if people are optimistic, the economy usually does well because it causes people to act in a way that drives the economy up.

They invest because they think, "Oh, this would be a good time to do that.

Everything's going well." So Trump is the master of all time of convincing people that the the economy is already going in the right direction when he's in charge.

Right?

So this uh this budget cut is part of that.

It's not terribly important by itself, but the more you hear stories about the Trump administration cut some expenses that were unnecessary, the happier you'll be.

you'll you'll think, "Oh, finally the adults are in charge." So the way you feel about it is much more important than the nine billion that they cut.

Well, according to poly market, um which is just a bunch of people who are asked their opinion and then gamble on stuff, I guess.

Um the the odds of a recession have gone down from 70% on poly market.

Um I guess that was in the spring when we were still confused about what would happen with tariffs and according to Breitbart News Jasmine Jordan that 70% chance of recession is now all the way down to 19%.

Now remember these are not economists but economists also have lowered their their estimate of the risk of a recession.

So regular people plus economists are all saying oh it doesn't look like a recession.

Now I remind you that Trump and his administration were really the ones saying no there's not going to be a recession.

And now we know they were right.

I mean, I suppose you could say no, but the recession will be in the autumn.

Well, maybe, but it doesn't look like it.

To me, it looks like I don't know, nine out of 10 economic signals are in the right direction at the moment.

And uh we're almost certainly going to get a rate cut.

If not now, then maybe in the spring and people will anticipate it and that will make them optimistic.

I really don't see a recession happening unless there's some brand new thing that happens that we don't know about.

So Trump is managing the expectations of the country really, really well.

And I don't think that story gets enough play because we talk about what Trump says and we think, oh, you know, he's just being a salesman.

And then we we talk about what the economy does and I don't think it's enough to connect it that the things he says do drive the economy and in a very real way.

Speaking of that, Brebbar News is uh reporting that gas prices are stable and fairly low compared to where they were under Biden uh in Trump's second term.

So, remember how bored you were in the spring?

Blah blah blah gas prices blah blah blah my eggs.

My eggs are too expensive.

And Democrats thought they finally had a winning topic.

All right, everybody.

We'll talk about gas and eggs.

And in typical Democrat um historical pattern, they they picked as their attack line the thing that was most likely to blow up in their faces.

Just like all the lawfare against Trump and getting the, you know, getting the, you know, everything from the attempted assassination to the the, you know, the Russia collusion hoax.

Every time they go after Trump, they managed to pick the only thing that's likely to backfire.

All right.

Now, we've got these pictures of him.

Um, what do you call it?

The mug shot.

We've got him now.

We got Trump to have to take a mug shot.

Ho ho ho ho ho ho.

We've got him now.

And then his supporters say, "Can I put that in a shirt?

That's pretty awesome." and the next thing you know his popularity goes up.

Um, and so the same thing I thought was obvious with the eggs and the gas.

The odds of Trump being able to move those two things given that they were such priorities were pretty high.

So the Democrats decided to hitch their their fate to eggs and gas.

the two things that Trump probably, and it looks like he succeeded, had the most ability to fix.

Why would they do that?

Everything they pick is the wrong thing to pick.

You know, Trump comes in, he goes, "We got to build a wall.

We got all these criminals coming across." Well, that just is real.

And then he can fix it.

And then he gets the credit for it.

But the Democrats never pick the right thing.

they always pick something that he can easily turn to his advantage either by solving it uh or by you know his his good persuasion.

So eggs um speaking of which also in Breitbart John Carney is reporting the egg prices fell 19.8% in June and they're down 61% since February.

You know what's weird?

Um, for most of my adult life, I've not eaten eggs.

Um, for a variety of reasons that don't really matter, but um, as soon as eggs were too expensive for people to afford, I really wanted some eggs.

And I was completely aware of the fact that I was being manipulated by the news.

as as long as the news told me that eggs were rare and that only rich people could eat eggs.

I I just said to myself, really, h so only successful rich people can eat eggs?

Well, I'm going to get a dozen eggs and see how right they are.

So, I was eating quite a few eggs.

Then the price of eggs went down and now now everybody can afford eggs.

Well, I've lost all my interest in them.

If I can't feel superior by eating an egg, I'll eat something else.

But egg prices and gas looking good.

Speaking of eggs, there's a new study out of the University of South Australia that says eating two eggs a day uh is actually good for your cholesterol and not bad.

Don't you recall years and years of our life where we were told, well, the eggs are okay, but you don't want to overdo it.

You know, you're not going to want to have two eggs every day because that would be too much cholesterol.

Do you remember that?

And now this study says that two eggs a day will actually improve your LDL, which is your good stuff, I guess.

So, no, it can reduce your LDL because that was bad stuff.

So, I was looking back on my history of diet and science, and correct me if I'm wrong, but over my lifetime, science has been wrong about everything about diet fairly consistently.

And I think almost everything except maybe soda.

Uh, soda's always been considered not the best thing for you, but almost everything else went through a a phase where somebody said it was bad for you only to be redeemed later by science.

In both cases, science was driving it.

And it just feels like guessing.

I mean, almost everything in the diet category just feels like guessing.

It's so damn weird.

So you can have your eggs.

Um, all right.

These next few stories have something in common, which is I don't understand them at all.

And I'm in good company because you won't understand them either, but they're big headline stories.

So, I spent most of this morning looking at the headlines and then going to Grock and saying, "Can you explain to me what this story is really about?

Can you tell me the context or why would I care about this or why is there even a story?" Right?

Let's see how let's see how close you can get to understanding this.

So Trump signed the what's called the Genius Act into law and it's legislation that will pave the way for the US to lead the global digital currency revolution.

So everybody understands that?

Do you understand cryptocurrency and do you understand why the Genius Act is going to be good for the US in terms of cryptocurrency?

No.

Of course you don't.

The the the news has just become so complicated and so so technical.

I have no idea what this means.

No idea.

Was there some problem I didn't know about?

Well, so I went to Grock and I said, "Why do we need the Genius Act?" And Grock told me it establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for pay for stable coins in the US.

Do you know what the next thing I had to ask it was?

Uh why do we care about stable coins?

And what the hell is a stable coin?

Have I lost you all yet?

Are are you all in the same place I am, which is I have no idea what's going on.

No idea.

But a stable coin is a cryptocurrency um that would in this particular example of the Genius Act would be issued usually by a bank or some some credible institution.

But what makes it a stable coin is that the crypto would only move with the dollar.

So if the dollar was worth a little more, so would the crypto, but it would always be tied to the the value of the dollar.

Now you might say um why do we need to have comprehensive regulatory framework?

Well, now you're you're well beyond my ability to explain what's going on.

There must be some ways that this can go wrong and having a good framework for for this and allowing stable coins.

I think the big change is that it allows the stable coins to thrive because people will feel safer uh about that.

And I know that there's a benefit if you're making payments overseas.

Have you ever tried to pay somebody a lot of money and you had to use a bank and then you say, "I'd like to send a a wire." and it's this gigantic pain in the ass and they take a big fee and you wonder why does it take overnight to send a wire?

Well, if you add um these stable coins, apparently you would just say to your trading partner in another country, all right, what's your account number?

I'm sending you some crypto and there wouldn't be any charge.

So, there would be no middleman to to take a piece of it.

So, some of it probably has to do with privacy and some of it has to do with regulatory um fiduciary responsibility, but we don't really understand it.

Well, what else is in the news?

Oh, President Trump vowed to never allow the creation of a central bank digital currency, which would be a crypto that would be sort of a direct replacement for the dollar.

So, he says that's not going to happen.

Um, why?

Well, there would be problems with privacy and it would give the government too much control because they could watch what you're doing and they could turn off your ability to do it.

To which I say, how is that really different than the regular dollar?

you know that if the government wants to look at your transactions, they're going to need a reason, but it doesn't take much of a reason and and they can get some kind of approval to, you know, totally look at what you're doing with your regular dollars.

So, do you really have privacy when it comes to larger transactions?

No, you don't.

You don't have any privacy when it comes to large transactions.

If your government is interested, if they want to look at what you're doing, they're going to be able to look at it.

They always have been able to.

So, do I think that a central bank digital currency would make it that much easier for the government to spy on you and control you?

I don't know.

Maybe.

But I think if you think it's a big deal, you probably don't realize how easily they can spy on you now.

Anyway, so those are two things I don't understand, but what I do like is that David Saxs is in charge of um explaining and getting changes in the government that are going to be helpful for crypto.

And while I don't think that Trump has a full understanding of this crypto world, I do think the Sachs does.

So this is one of those cases where I'm willing to trust the plan only because I I believe that the person in charge is smart enough and honest enough that he would lead us in the right direction.

And uh we'll see.

Well, the story of uh the alleged Donald Trump doodle on a birthday card to Epstein when Epstein was 50.

So that would have been years ago, 2003.

Um the new wrinkle is that Michael Cohen, who went to jail and he was Trump's attorney and you know he loved Trump when they were working together, but then they became enemies.

like really enemies.

And even Michael Cohen, who remains, I would say, a big enemy of Donald Trump, says, quote, "During the 13-year time period that he was close to Trump, I never heard Trump mention Jeffrey Epstein, and over 13 years of being by the man's side, I have never once seen him doodle.

I never saw him draw a picture.

In fact, I would be very shocked if Donald Trump actually can doodle.

So I feel at this point the the public opinion at least on the right is that the Wall Street Journal report is fake news and maybe they didn't intend it that way maybe.

But um it doesn't look like the evidence that they produced is reliable to me.

This looks like Now, uh, bolstering the idea that it's a fake news, uh, Trump is suing Murdoch and Wall Street Journal for, um, for producing that article, which Trump would say they would know was fake.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be a problem.

If they did it accidentally, thinking it was real, I think they're safe.

But if they knew it wasn't real and they did it anyway, well then then they might have some legal problems with Trump.

So he's got his lawsuit going.

He says he's looking forward to Murdoch testifying.

All right.

But what would be the most predictable part of the story?

The most predictable thing.

The most predictable thing would be that um we would someday find out that the reporter behind the story for the Wall Street Journal has some connection to the Democrat deep state.

Do you think that maybe that's true?

Well, it turns out uh the Gateway Pundit is writing that uh according to let's see Real Clear Politics and National Political Correspondent Susan Crabshy uh uncovered a damning connection between the reporter who wrote that story about the the birthday card and the little drawing on it.

Um it it's Joe Palazolo.

Uh, and apparently he was connected with, let's see, he previously worked as a reporter for something called Maine Justice.

So, so far you're saying, "Well, that's nothing." But Maine Justice was a publication run by Glenn Simpson's wife.

Have you made the connection yet?

Glenn Simpson um was the founder of Fusion GPS.

Are you there yet?

Have you made the connection yet?

Fusion GPS was behind the steel dossier.

So, at the same time that, and we'll talk about this, that the uh Trump administration is putting all kinds of pressure on the creators of the steel dossier and all the fake Russia collusion hoax.

At the same time, the Wall Street Journal coincidentally produces a major story in which somebody who was, let me say it again, uh, the reporter who wrote the story used to work for Glenn Simpson's wife and Glenn Simpson was the one whose firm was behind the Steel Dossier, which we know is fake.

So, don't you think we need an AI program that will do this automatically?

Uh, I feel like it could do it because these connections are always public.

Like, you can always find a story or a connection or a Linked.

In profile or something.

So I would love to know every time a reporter writes a negative piece on somebody I would like to know ah so what's your spouse do where did your spouse work before this where did you work before this and did you work with anybody's spouse that we should know about the the fact that any human being can make these connections is kind of stunningly impressive but Um, someday maybe AI, who know?

Well, CNN's Harry Enon, he's their data guy.

Um, he says that Republicans are up a shocking 12 points uh before the 2026 midterms.

So, I won't give you all the data involved here, but the basic is that um CNN's data guy says that this midterm election is not looking like past patterns.

Past patterns are that whoever's in charge loses the midterms.

So if your if your party has the president, almost always the midterm elections where they're only voting for members of Congress, almost always the other team, you know, picks up some dominance in that area.

But uh Democrats are way behind according to Enton their 2006 and 2018 pace at this point in the cycle.

Doesn't mean it won't change.

you know, there there will be a million hoaxes between now and the midterms.

Um, but it looks like the Democrats are on the verge of the last morsel of credibility that they had is about to be extinguished if things go the way it looks.

Now, I don't predict it.

I I feel like it's bad luck to predict it, you know, because the the red wave didn't happen, etc.

So, I'm not going to do that.

I'm not going to predict it.

I've never seen CNN be so u I won't say panicked, but they're quite aggressively promoting the idea that Democrats are in real trouble.

Is that true?

I don't know.

Maybe it's a plot to get more Democrats to vote.

I don't know.

But um you should not if you're a Democrat, you should not be worried that the Democrats will never be able to recover from the deep deep hole that they're in because they have a plan.

And their plan, as you know, is to uh do more swearing in public so that they're more like Trump and to do more pretending that they're authentic because the Democrats literally believe that being authentic is an act.

Now, I'm not a mind readader, so you might say, "Scott, you don't know what they're thinking." Well, I don't know what they're thinking, but the way they act and the way they talk suggests that they believe that Trump is only pretending to be authentic and somehow pulling it off.

Whereas, so they believe that they could do the same.

Well, we could pretend to be authentic.

Let's just copy what he does.

Got it.

All right.

He does these insults.

We could do insults.

He does swearing.

Oh, that's what the common person does.

We can do that.

And they miss they miss the entire point of it.

The point of it is that Trump has largely been consistent forever.

You you'd find a few topics where over time he he uh changed, but generally speaking, Trump has been Trump for almost my whole adult life.

So yeah, I don't think you can I don't think you match his authenticity unless you've got somebody who has a long track record and then they are consistent with their long track record.

Well, I guess I guess Bernie's authentic because as stupid as his ideas are, they've never changed.

So he's sort of authentic in a bad way.

Well, uh, Trump said in response to some, um, press shouted, uh, question, he said, quote, "I was the hunted, now I'm the hunter." I feel like he's used that a few times, but do you remember um, the most mocked I've ever been over a post on what was old Twitter?

The most mocked and uh abused I've been is when I did a post that said if Biden is elected that Republicans will be haunted.

Oh my god.

That became like a national headline and and people didn't argue it, they just mocked it.

It's like look at this guy.

Oh my god.

He's Can you believe it?

Can you believe it?

This guy, this cartoonist guy, this Dilbert guy, he's saying, oh, he says that if Biden gets elected, come on, come on, this is just hilarious.

He's saying this idiot is saying that Republicans will be hunted.

Uh, it's the best prediction I've ever made because no one else that I know of, certainly nobody in the public sphere was making that prediction that early.

And then what happened?

Republicans got hunted.

Some of us got cancelled, which you might say, well, that's different.

You know, you had that coming.

No, we didn't.

No, we didn't.

There were there were no Republicans that canceled me.

I didn't get cancelled by one Republican.

Not even one.

No, that was part of getting hunted.

Um the January 6ers hunted the How about Trump himself?

Hunted and literally shot.

Hunted and then literally shot.

And that's after all the lawfare.

So, generally speaking, I would not be in favor of a politician doing revengey kinds of stuff once in office cuz I feel like, well, that's a bad precedent to do revengey stuff because then maybe the other side will do some revengey stuff.

To which I now say to myself, Scott, shut the up.

the things that the Democrats did to you, the things they did to other Republicans, and the things they did to the preferred leader of your political movement, Trump, are so bad that Trump absolutely should hunt them down and that a large number of them belong in jail.

And you would not have to make up charges.

You would not have to pretend something happened that didn't.

You could just use the public record and start locking up people and maybe that's going to happen.

So, I'm completely flipped on the question of presidential revenge.

If the other side had done a little bit of something bad and then Trump was going to do something a little worse, I wouldn't be in favor of that.

But what the Democrats did was so freaking bad that you can't get worse than that.

You have to go to jail for that.

You have to go to jail.

And I think maybe there's some possibility we'll see some of that.

But yeah, he's the hunter now.

Um well apparently I didn't even know this was happening but there's some big success in getting some uh 10 US citizens who were detained in Venezuela.

I didn't even know that was happening have been released and uh credit is being given to Secretary Rubio and uh El Salvador's leader uh Boulli.

So apparently he was um helpful in in making that happen.

Now, I got to say, Reuters is reporting on this.

I got to say, um, Trump is really good at releasing American prisoners.

Nobody's ever been better at that.

Would you agree?

Can Can you even think of any president who was this good at getting American prisoners released overseas?

I feel like he I feel like he's alone in this capability.

But I will give a shout out to uh El Salvador's book Kelly because he plays everything so smart that it's it's kind of hard to even understand why he's so good at what he does.

But, you know, with all these countries who want to push back on the US and they don't want to be pushed around and they don't, you know, they don't want Trump to be running rough shot over them.

Well, Boulli goes the other direction and he basically, you know, this is my interpretation, says, "Wouldn't it make more sense if I have this really productive relationship with Trump and with the US, and wouldn't El Salvador really benefit from really being a tight ally with the US?" And the answer is yes.

Yes.

I I feel like it's such a smart and obvious play to be our best friend that when you see the other countries are playing it the opposite way.

We cannot be humiliated by the United States, we will try to stop them at every every turn.

How is that working out?

I mean really, how's that working out?

Whereas Boulli just says, "All right, I'm going to lock up all my all my criminals.

I'm going to embrace uh Bitcoin, which turned out to be looking pretty smart at the moment.

And uh I'm going to work very productively with the United States and be their best friend.

And if they ever need a favor, oh, I'll totally do it.

I'll do them a favor.

How smart is that?

I mean, I don't know who I don't know if he's being advised or he's just that smart, but uh I love I love watching an ally of the United States just kill it.

He's just killing it.

Laura Loomer has a scoop.

She's uh talking to a whistleblower who says and I'm going to wait for a fact check on this because I I do think that Laura Loomer has good sources and she's you know making sure that she's uh you know crossed all the tees and dotted all the eyes.

Most boring thing anybody ever said.

Um but the claim is that under Barack Obama the the systems that the computer systems that the government use um was delegated to Chinese foreign nationals located in China as the tax support which means that the Chinese I'm having I'm having trouble believing this is real because the implications of it are so big that although I think Laura Loomer has uh earned some credibility with her scoops, you know, they they seem to work out.

How could this possibly be true?

Let me finish what it is.

So the claim is that under Obama um a backdoor was given to Chinese tech people in China who of course would be beholden to the Chinese government for anything they can steal.

So in theory the Chinese government has had full access to all of our government systems.

full access to all of our government systems for like 10 years now.

Is that possible?

How many of you think that's real?

I don't know.

I'm sure there will be some nuances to this like, oh, we had we had this wall up so they couldn't do any mischief or something.

But at the moment, the Laura Loomer's scoop is that the Chinese government had full access to all of our government technology and that and that Obama must have known it because he, you know, his administration approved it.

So, this one doesn't make sense to me.

Um, there's probably something else we don't know about it, but that's happening.

All right, I'm going to ruin your fun a little bit.

You all know the big story of the day that Tulsi Gabbard um came out with uh some new information they found which let's say um so the claim is she did a long thread on X uh that for months before the 2016 election the intelligence community um had a consensus view that Russia lacked the intent and capability to hack US elections.

Now, the claim, if I could summarize it, is that they have new documentation to show that the Obama administration, including Obama and including Brennan Clapper, were fully aware that Russia did not hack the election.

Um, yet they claimed that that Russia did interfere with the election.

So, the claim is that it's a big conspiracy theory.

Um, no, that's the wrong word.

It's a conspiracy like RICO that people were all in on this uh hoax and the hoax was that that Russia was helping Trump get elected, but they knew that it wasn't true.

Um, there's something wrong with this story, and you're not going to like it when I tell you.

I believe it's conflating things and what it looks like is conflating is the question of whether um Russia could impact with cyber attacks the election infrastructure.

So the the thing that the intelligence community knew is that Russia uh there was no evidence that Russia could get into our election infrastructure.

In other words, they did not believe that Russia was getting into voting machines or databases and changing the result.

And so, because we knew that they weren't getting into the infrastructure of the elections, it means that Obama and his team were lying weasels when they said, "Oh, yeah, Russia, you know, may have been behind trying to help Trump jump." So, but here's where I'm going to disagree with how it's been treated so far, this story.

I feel like it conflates the thing that I'm sure did not happen because there's no evidence, which is that Russia indeed did not directly hack the voting machines or the databases.

But I don't remember that even being a claim.

Do you?

I remember hearing Sorry, I've got allergies.

Um, I remember hearing that Russia may have hacked Hillary's email and Podesta's email and maybe something else, but would you call those election infrastructure?

They're not, right?

Um, I remember hearing that Russia ran a bunch of memes, some advertisement.

Some of it was anti-Trump.

Some of it was anti- Hillary.

Yeah.

The the meme farm.

So the meme farm had nothing to do with hacking anything.

It was just memes.

And then there was a claim that uh uh so there was a meme farm, there was a hacking of the emails, and then of course you always throw in the um Maniffort was scamming some Russian billionaire and he was scamming him saying he would give him some, you know, secret stuff and the only thing he ever gave him was some uh dated internal um polling.

So, but metaphor went to jail for that and there was no evidence that Trump knew anything about it.

So when Tulsi Gabbard says that uh we have documents that show that the intelligence community knew that the Russians did not hack the election infrastructure that that fact disproves their other claims that Russia tried to influence the election.

Those are just different topics, right?

Because when I see the way the news is treating them, the news is trying to treat it like it's all one big ball of the same thing.

And that if you know for sure that Russia or there's no evidence that Russia tried to directly change the vote, that that is a debunk to the claim that they hacked some email and it might have affected the election.

Probably didn't.

or that they had some memes on social media that tried to affect the election but probably didn't cuz they were so minor.

Am I wrong?

Uh I want to see your opinion.

When you hear this story, doesn't it feel like they tried to connect dots that don't connect?

I feel like there's nothing in this story cuz I don't remember any time I ever believed it.

Was it even was it even public?

Did Did the Democrats literally claim that Russia hacked into our computer into our election infrastructure?

When was that ever in the news?

Um, Cabo Mate is saying, "Scott, they got rid of the report of no finding of Russia collusion and then met to plan the coup to unseeed Trump." Oh, they it definitely was a coup.

So, I'm not questioning whether or not um there was a Democrat coup and a hoax.

That that is for sure.

What I'm questioning is if this new information adds anything to anything.

I don't think it does because all it's saying is that um the IC community said no election infrastructure was was successfully hacked by Russia.

Was that ever really a claim?

I don't remember that even being a claim.

Do you know why that would not have been a claim?

Have Have you connected the dots yet?

We were told that the one thing we know for sure is that there was no way to hack our elections directly, as in there was no way for any hacker, be they Russian or be they anyone else.

There was no way for them to penetrate our systems because they were too secure.

So if the Democrats had been claiming that Russia had the ability to hack our election system infrastructure, they would have had to admit that it was possible to hack our election system infrastructure.

And the entire time I remember the Democrats were saying and the and the fake news that support him were all saying there is no way that anybody could hack this system and not get caught.

So if they had claimed that Russia had indeed hacked it and not been caught, that would make our entire election system look unsecure.

So, I I don't even think there's anything new that's important about this story, but we'll see.

We'll see how it everything gets conflated.

But yes, I do believe that Brennan and Clapper and Obama probably belong in jail.

My my current thing is that what they did was a gelable offense and that they did literally try to overthrow the government of the United States twice.

once um with the Russia collusion hoax and then a second time with the January 6th insurrection hoax which was probably designed to make sure that Republicans never rose again which would be another form of election interference.

So to me there are two very obvious welldocumented attempts to overthrow the normal workings of our elections and we know exactly who was behind all of them.

You know throw in Nancy Pelosi to the January 6 stuff.

So we we've known forever that the steel dossier was debunked from the start.

That's not new.

So, what I'm saying is that there's nothing new.

We knew that they knew that it was debunked and that they went with it anyway, which is why I say they should all go to jail.

They should all go to jail.

Um, but but we knew that there's nothing new.

All right.

Um, have you noticed, some of you probably have found this out, if you're not following Mike Benz on X, do you really understand anything that's going on in this world?

I feel like if if Mike Benz didn't exist, I would be so confused about what the world really is and how it works.

But he has this uh almost unnatural ability to understand insanely complicated government things.

Not only in terms of all the moving parts, which is so impressive I can't even express it.

Um but he knows the history as well.

So he knows all the moving parts today.

you know, the names of entities and people connected to things that you and I would never know, but also how that connects to everything in the past.

So, when there's one of these stories, um, I have to wait to hear what he says to get it in the proper context.

So, um, we need more of that.

So, what he's saying now is that the he's talking about the DOJ motion.

So, the Department of Justice has requested because a lot of MAGA supporters have asked for this to unseal the uh Epstein grand jury uh transcripts.

Now, I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that that will be declined that I don't believe that the court will agree to uh release any grand jury transcripts.

And if they did, it would be highly redacted to the point of being useless.

So, I don't think it's going to work.

But then Mike Benz weighs in and he says, "Uh, kudos to the Pam Bondi DOJ for launching this motion so quickly.

Uh, not to rain on it, but if you simply walk down the DOJ hallway to OPR, so that's a department there, and published the full AASTA transcript." Acasta was the prosecutor in the the first Epstein situation uh where OPR asked about Epstein's intelligence ties.

You'd get us easy answers immediately.

What?

This almost looks a little too easy to be true.

Is it true that Pam Bondi can literally walk down the hallway and open the door to the OPR?

I forget what they what OPR stands for.

Um, and asked for the document that would probably answer all of our questions about Epstein and his intelligence connections.

Is that possible?

And and why is Mike Ben the only person who knows that down the hallway there's a door marked OPR and if you walk through it, you could have all your answers.

Is that true?

I mean, this would be so impressive.

I mean, I'm impressed already with all the stuff that Mike Benz knows about everything, but if he actually knows that there's a doorway you can walk through to get the answer to that question and he knows where it is and he knows who has the authority to walk through that door.

Okay, that's I mean that's just standing ovation time.

So, we'll see if that happens.

But um I would feel like if Mike Benz ever stopped doing what he's doing, I would feel unprotected.

I would feel like, you know, he's like this watcher who who who just understands everything we're seeing so he can warn you about where the where the corrupt parts are and how it works.

Now, on top of that, he also has a take on Epstein that um seems to be just a Mike Ben's take, but it's it's uh I'm warming to it.

And the idea is that Epstein wasn't so much about being a sexual blackmailer, although he might have done a little bit of it, but he might be better understood as a um a financial manipulator and money launderer who may have made his services available to a variety of entities.

Some of which might have been intelligence related and some of which may not necessarily have been US intelligence related.

So, we don't know that part, but uh I'm kind of warming to that because that would explain why the Epstein files um are not having the secrets we expected because he's probably good at hiding his his financial stuff.

That was his expertise that to hide the financial trails of who did what where.

And the theory would be that he would just know everybody who had money and he would know everybody who needed money for things that maybe the intelligence community wanted done, but they didn't want their fingerprints on it and they didn't have a budget to do it themselves.

So they would go to Epstein and then they say, you know, if you could find a billionaire who would give $10 million to this entity that sounds like it's some charity, we would use that money for things that would be really good for the country.

So can you go get us that money?

And maybe, as Mike Benz points out, the the the sex part of it might have been something that was just good for convincing some rich people, maybe in other countries, especially um to work with them.

So, if you were some Middle East uh billionaire and Epstein came by and said, "Hey, how would you like to party?

And by the way, I could use a billion dollars for, you know, some project or something.

Not to him, but maybe we could have get a slice of that business.

Maybe that's how we got rich.

So, there's that.

Speaking also of Mike Benz, he asked this question.

Um, he said that Julian Assange is a free man now, and he should tell us what he meant by this clip.

Um, it was a clip where he talked about Seth Rich.

Um, if you've ever seen that clip, it was quite a while ago, but Julian Assange talked about uh Seth Rich, the young man who was a Democrat who got murdered on the street.

And some people said that he was a source for Wikileaks.

And then Assange, who was at Wikileaks, was talking about Seth Rich and he made it really clear to the interviewer and the the audience that Seth Rich was their source and that that's why he got killed.

Now, I don't know that that's true.

I just know that Assange made sure that you believed he was saying that.

Now, he didn't say it.

He just made sure you knew that that's what he was thinking.

So he he did the indirect thing, but the indirect thing was so clear that he very clearly said, "Yeah, Seth Rich got murdered for being a a Wikileaks source." So yeah, if if Julian Assange is free to talk, maybe we should find out what he meant by that.

But the fact that he didn't tell us directly before suggests he might have a reason not to do it directly again.

So, don't know if that would work or not.

RFK Jr., the HHS secretary says uh the US is going to reject the World Health Organization's pandemic measures.

So, I guess the World Health Organization or who um has some ideas for all the member countries of what they should do if there's another pandemic, but the last thing we want to do is follow their advice.

So, it looks like we're going to reject that.

In other news, there's a poll at uh FNG Annuities and Life um that found uh found that one in four Americans are considering delaying retirement um over economic concerns.

Nearly a quarter.

One in four.

Does that sound right to you?

cuz I don't know about you, but when I look at um the people I know who are not rich, I don't know how they're going to survive retirement because um if if you don't have any income in and you're only relying on your savings and your your social security, are you going to be able to make that work?

You know, I don't know, but it just doesn't look like most of the country can afford to retire.

So, you know, I I know I'm not retiring, but I don't know.

I feel like it's more than one and four.

There's a uh company called Protector, which has a little app where you can connect yourself to offduty police officers who live near you.

and uh you can get some extra protection that you won't get from your own police who may have lost their funding if you live in a blue city especially.

So the uh the postmillennials writing about that.

So that sounds like a good idea to be able to spend a little extra to have uh offduty police officers, you know, respond if you can't get anybody else to help.

Yeah, you the cops of your yard.

All right.

And then lastly, as I warned you at the start, um this is the end of my prepared remarks.

So Owen Gregorian will be holding his uh his spaces event on X.

So, any of you who want to go continue the conversation about the news or other things as well, I guess.

Um, look for Owen Gregorian on X.

Um, and uh I think I forgot to repost it, but I'll do that as soon as we're done.

And um I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately in a moment.

So the rest of you, I'll see you uh tomorrow, same time, same place.

and locals, my beloved locals members.

Good to see you. There's room up front.

All right, let me get all the comments

working and then

we're ready

for the most special podcast of all

time,

says me.

All right, almost there.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take this experience up to

levels that no one can can understand

with their tiny shiny human brains, all

you need for that

is a copper mug or a glass of tanker

shelter sty canteen jug or flask vessel

of any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure, the

dopamine hit of the day, the thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

Oh, that's good stuff.

All right. Thank you, Paul. Well, it's

Saturday and as tradition requires,

um Owen Gregorian will do a spaces event

on X right after the show. So after the

show, few minutes after, you'll be able

to find a active spaces event. That's

the audio feature within X where people

can talk to each other

and you can talk about what we talked

about or something different. I suppose

about the news.

Uh, so that'll be directly after the

show. Well, I wonder if there are any

scientific studies that didn't need to

be done because they could just ask me.

Huh. All right. Here's one. Uh Fox News

is reporting Khloe Quill writes that

there is a new study that shows that uh

overeating is roughly

um

God there's one person in my life who

only texts me when I'm on live stream.

How in the world? Anyway, so there's a

study that says that overeating is 10

times more important than exercise.

So if you want to lose weight, were you

aware that exercise doesn't make that

much difference? Exercise is very good

for your health, but it's not really

much of a weight loss thing. Now, what

could they have done instead of doing a

big study?

Well, they could read my books. I wrote

15 years ago

when I told you because science has

known this for a long long time. It's

not something I made up but this is one

of the most well understood phenomena

in all of science that what you eat

is related to your weight but not really

your exercise. exercise is good for its

own benefits, but it doesn't really help

you lose weight too much. Um, according

to the new atlas, broaden Thompson is

writing that there's a universal cancer

vaccine

that's uh coming up now. So far it's

only in animal trials but it's based on

the believe it or not the mRNA platform

and apparently they have successfully

um used this vaccination this cancer

vaccination

uh on one kind of cancer glyobblastoma

and apparently it works and instead of

killing the cancer directly what it does

is it boosts your body's ability to do

it on its own. And they've determined,

at least with animal studies, that

apparently the same technique would work

with

all cancers.

So, they still have to do animal studies

and then they would have to do human

studies.

But it turns out that there might be a

cure for all cancer. that's just a few

years away.

Now, I know I know that this uh there's

a cure for cancer around the bend has

been the same story since I was

probably in my teens

and it hasn't been right yet. So, why

would it be right this time? Well, it

would be right this time because I need

it to be right. So, if I can just stay

alive for a few more years, maybe I can

get into the uh you know, into some kind

of a test. Maybe.

So, I have two words.

Hurry up.

Uh I'm going to need this a little bit

faster than your usual schedule.

Well, Breitbart News is reporting that

uh there were 85 Minnesota autism

clinics where they specialize in

treating autistic children, I think

mostly. Um, and they're under

investigation for millions of dollars in

Medicaid fraud.

So, 85 autism

uh clinics. I didn't even know there was

such a thing. And apparently they were

claiming they did some treatments that

they didn't do massively. They were

claiming that. And so they're getting

pinched on that. Now, how many times

have I told you on my live streams that

everything that can be corrupted

is

whenever you have a situation where a

lot of money is involved, check. A lot

of people are involved, check. And

there's enough time that's gone by for

people to figure out how to cheat it.

Under those conditions, which appear to

be all present in this autism clinic

story, under those conditions, how often

is there massive corruption? And the

answer is every time.

Every time. If you have those

conditions, lots of money, lots of

people, a lot of time has gone by, it's

always fraudulent.

You want another example?

Well, uh, Cash Patel, head of the FBI,

announced indictments for these

children's nutrition programs.

Um, also in Minnesota, what was the

other one? Minnesota. Okay. Minnesota

seems to be a a hot bed of corruption.

You don't really expect Minnesota to be

the most corrupt state, but uh Michael

Chance is writing in Brebar News that

according to Cash Patel, the uh

Minnesota children's nutrition programs

scammed millions in CO funds.

So, the children's nut nutrition

programs involved a lot of people,

a lot of money,

and apparently enough time went by where

people could figure out how to cheat it.

So, yes, it would appear that 100% of

the time that it's possible to have

corruption. Well, there's corruption

100% of the time.

Well, according to uh Neielson data,

YouTube is the most watched video on

your big TV. Now, you might say, "But

it's been most watched for a long time

on my portable device, but now it's also

the most watched content on your big TV

set." Um,

and I would I would say that that makes

sense in my life. Um, I probably watch I

might watch more YouTube than anything

else. Maybe not, but it's moving in that

direction. Um, however, I don't know if

you've noticed this, YouTube is being

completely destroyed by AI.

U, now it might be just the personal

recommendations that come to me, but I

used to love listening to all these

history YouTubes. you know, it' be like

the ancient Mesopotamians or whatever.

And I would love those. But, uh, I guess

the people who are good at AI figured

out they can have AI make that kind of

content, some historical thing about

something you've heard of. And they are

so boring. Oh my god, they're boring.

And most of the content that when I when

I open YouTube, most of it is AI.

And there's I don't think there was even

one AI content that I got anything out

of. They're they're all just just so

generic. And

so YouTube has a problem. They're going

to have to police all the AI. I think

in a horrible news, I don't know the

details of this yet, but a vehicle uh

apparently somebody drove a vehicle into

a crowd in Santa Monica Boulevard

and 20 people who were injured and and

several killed, I guess, so far. So, I

don't yet know.

me. Of course, it's an emergency.

Uh yeah, the the the one person who only

texts me during my live stream, always

an emergency.

It's like, "Are you awake? It's an

emergency."

All right. Well, you have to wait.

Um so, we don't know if that's a

terrorist or a crazy person or bad

driving or what that is, but we'll find

out. the uh story about Stephen Coar

getting u fired

uh from his job at the the Tonight Show,

the Late Show. What was his show called?

The Late Tonight Show or I don't know. I

never watched it. But uh now people are

suspecting the Democrats are that maybe

it wasn't about economics.

This this is such a this is such a

Democrat point of view. Uh even though

the show was losing $40 million a year,

people thought that the reason probably

wasn't economics.

There was rather trying to make Trump

happy so the Trump administration will

approve a merger

um that Paramount wants to do with uh

some other company. And I thought to

myself,

are Democrats

that economically ignorant that they

think somebody would want to keep a show

on TV that was losing $40 million a year

and didn't look like it would ever get

better? Probably would only get worse.

So

it, you know, it makes me wonder, is

this one of those things where the

Democrats know it's not really a good

attack on Trump, but they don't care

because it's something and they don't

have anything else. Like, well, why

don't we make up some stupid hoax about

Stephen Cobear?

However, I have to admit there's a

little bit there.

Wasn't there a similar rumor that when

Tucker Carlson got canned by Fox News

that the reason had something to do with

a lawsuit and maybe there was a side

deal that said, "All right, we we'll

settle this lawsuit." But then somebody

said, "The only way we'll accept it is

if you also fire Tucker Carlson.

So sometimes there's a little bit of a

side deal. I don't know if it was true

with Tucker and I certainly don't know

if it's true with Stephen Colbear, but

the Democrats are um I think they're

justified in asking the question,

was this part of the deal? But if you're

losing $40 million a year and you get

cancelled,

I feel like

there's another reason that's really

good. $40 million a year.

However, the good news is that uh

there's already a replacement for Steven

Colbear. Um, Stephen Colbear's show will

run through May and uh, May is also the

end of Jerome Powell's

um, stay at the uh, the Fed. So Jerome

Powell, whose uh, nickname is Too Late

uh, will be hosting a new show called

the Too Late Show.

How many of you believe that's true?

Anybody?

No, that's not true. But it's funny that

the show will run through May, which

coincidentally is when Jerome Powell um

is going to be out of his job and that

his nickname is Too Late. The Too Late

Show. Come on. That's funny.

The The thing about doing jokes on live

stream is that there's a delay before I

see the LOL's come through. So, I'm

like, did that land? Do I need to reward

that one? Because I thought it was a

winner.

Well, the House of Representatives has

approved the uh $9 billion budget cuts

that Trump wanted, and that would

include cuts to NPR and PBS. Now, it

doesn't put them out of business. It

just reduces one of their multiple

sources of income. Um, I love

how good Trump is at touting his

successes.

He is really good at it. And remember

the uh criticisms that were always being

given to Biden. They'd say, you know,

the real problem is that uh Democrats

are not doing a good job of telling

people about their successes.

And then Trump gets in office. There's

never been anybody better

in the history of presidents or maybe in

the history of everything that's ever

happened anywhere in any way who's been

better at touting his successes.

Trump is really, really good at it. Now,

he has a lot of successes to tout. That

helps. Um, but here's another one. You

know, the $9 billion isn't going to make

a big deal to the the deficit. It's not

enough to make a dent in it. But doesn't

it make you feel good to know that there

was something something finally that

reduced some part of a budget associated

with the the country. Now, it's not a

big deal, but the way it feels is bigger

than how big a deal it is. And that's

what Trump gets right every time. He

will make you feel that things are

moving in the right direction. And what

have I taught you about economics?

The most important thing you need to

know about economics, aside from the

fact that economists are only guessing,

that maybe that's rule one. Even the

professionals are pretty much just

guessing. You know, there's a reason

they always disagree on everything.

However, the other big rule of economics

is that economics are driven by

expectations.

And if people are optimistic, the

economy usually does well because it

causes people to act in a way that

drives the economy up. They invest

because they think, "Oh, this would be a

good time to do that. Everything's going

well." So Trump is the master of all

time of convincing people that the the

economy is already going in the right

direction when he's in charge. Right? So

this uh this budget cut is part of that.

It's not terribly important by itself,

but the more you hear stories about the

Trump administration

cut some expenses that were unnecessary,

the happier you'll be. you'll you'll

think, "Oh, finally the adults are in

charge." So the way you feel about it is

much more important than the nine

billion that they cut.

Well, according to poly market,

um which is just a bunch of people who

are asked their opinion and then gamble

on stuff, I guess. Um the the odds of a

recession have gone down from 70% on

poly market. Um I guess that was in the

spring when we were still confused about

what would happen with tariffs and

according to Breitbart News Jasmine

Jordan that 70% chance of recession is

now all the way down to 19%.

Now remember these are not economists

but economists also have lowered their

their estimate of the risk of a

recession. So regular people plus

economists are all saying oh it doesn't

look like a recession. Now I remind you

that Trump and his administration

were really the ones saying no there's

not going to be a recession.

And now we know they were right. I mean,

I suppose you could say no, but the

recession will be in the autumn. Well,

maybe, but it doesn't look like it. To

me, it looks like I don't know, nine out

of 10 economic signals are in the right

direction at the moment. And uh we're

almost certainly going to get a rate

cut. If not now, then maybe in the

spring and people will anticipate it and

that will make them optimistic.

I really don't see a recession happening

unless there's some brand new thing that

happens that we don't know about.

So Trump is managing the expectations of

the country really, really well. And I

don't think that story gets enough play

because we talk about what Trump says

and we think, oh, you know, he's just

being a salesman. And then we we talk

about what the economy does

and I don't think it's enough to connect

it that the things he says do drive the

economy and in a very real way.

Speaking of that, Brebbar News is uh

reporting that gas prices are stable and

fairly low compared to where they were

under Biden uh in Trump's second term.

So, remember how bored you were in the

spring? Blah blah blah gas prices blah

blah blah my eggs. My eggs are too

expensive.

And Democrats thought they finally had a

winning topic. All right, everybody.

We'll talk about gas and eggs. And in

typical Democrat um historical pattern,

they they picked as their attack line

the thing that was most likely to blow

up in their faces.

Just like all the lawfare against Trump

and getting the, you know, getting the,

you know, everything from the attempted

assassination to the the, you know, the

Russia collusion hoax.

Every time they go after Trump, they

managed to pick the only thing that's

likely to backfire. All right. Now,

we've got these pictures of him. Um,

what do you call it? The mug shot.

We've got him now. We got Trump to have

to take a mug shot. Ho ho ho ho ho ho.

We've got him now. And then his

supporters say, "Can I put that in a

shirt? That's pretty awesome."

and the next thing you know his

popularity goes up. Um, and so the same

thing I thought was obvious with the

eggs and the gas. The odds of Trump

being able to move those two things

given that they were such priorities

were pretty high. So the Democrats

decided to hitch their their fate to

eggs and gas.

the two things that Trump probably, and

it looks like he succeeded, had the most

ability to fix.

Why would they do that? Everything they

pick is the wrong thing to pick.

You know, Trump comes in, he goes, "We

got to build a wall. We got all these

criminals coming across." Well, that

just is real. And then he can fix it.

And then he gets the credit for it. But

the Democrats never pick the right

thing. they always pick something that

he can easily turn to his advantage

either by solving it uh or by you know

his his good persuasion.

So eggs

um speaking of which also in Breitbart

John Carney is reporting the egg prices

fell 19.8% in June and they're down 61%

since February. You know what's weird?

Um, for most of my adult life, I've not

eaten eggs.

Um, for a variety of reasons that don't

really matter, but

um, as soon as eggs were too expensive

for people to afford, I really wanted

some eggs.

And I was completely aware of the fact

that I was being manipulated by the

news.

as as long as the news told me that eggs

were rare and that only rich people

could eat eggs.

I I just said to myself, really, h so

only successful rich people can eat

eggs? Well, I'm going to get a dozen

eggs and see how right they are.

So, I was eating quite a few eggs. Then

the price of eggs went down and now now

everybody can afford eggs. Well, I've

lost all my interest in them. If I can't

feel superior by eating an egg,

I'll eat something else.

But egg prices and gas looking good.

Speaking of eggs, there's a new study

out of the University of South Australia

that says eating two eggs a day uh is

actually good for your cholesterol and

not bad.

Don't you recall years and years of our

life where we were told, well, the eggs

are okay, but you don't want to overdo

it. You know, you're not going to want

to have two eggs every day because that

would be too much cholesterol. Do you

remember that? And now this study says

that two eggs a day will actually

improve your LDL, which is your good

stuff, I guess. So, no, it can reduce

your LDL because that was bad stuff.

So, I was looking back on my history of

diet and science,

and correct me if I'm wrong, but over my

lifetime, science has been wrong about

everything about diet fairly

consistently.

And I think almost everything except

maybe soda. Uh, soda's always been

considered not the best thing for you,

but almost everything else went through

a a phase where somebody said it was bad

for you only to be redeemed later by

science. In both cases, science was

driving it. And it just feels like

guessing. I mean, almost everything in

the diet category just feels like

guessing. It's so damn weird.

So you can have your eggs.

Um,

all right. These next few stories have

something in common, which is I don't

understand them at all. And I'm in good

company because you won't understand

them either, but they're big headline

stories. So, I spent most of this

morning looking at the headlines and

then going to Grock and saying, "Can you

explain to me what this story is really

about? Can you tell me the context or

why would I care about this or why is

there even a story?" Right? Let's see

how let's see how close you can get to

understanding this.

So Trump signed the what's called the

Genius Act into law and it's legislation

that will pave the way for the US to

lead the global digital currency

revolution.

So everybody understands that? Do you

understand cryptocurrency

and do you understand why the Genius Act

is going to be good for the US in terms

of cryptocurrency?

No. Of course you don't.

The the the news has just become so

complicated and so so technical.

I have no idea what this means. No idea.

Was there some problem I didn't know

about?

Well, so I went to Grock

and I said, "Why do we need the Genius

Act?" And Grock told me it establishes a

comprehensive regulatory framework for

pay for stable coins in the US.

Do you know what the next thing I had to

ask it was? Uh why do we care about

stable coins? And what the hell is a

stable coin?

Have I lost you all yet? Are are you all

in the same place I am, which is I have

no idea what's going on. No idea. But a

stable coin is a cryptocurrency

um that would in this particular example

of the Genius Act would be issued

usually by a bank or some some credible

institution. But what makes it a stable

coin is that the crypto would only move

with the dollar. So if the dollar was

worth a little more, so would the

crypto, but it would always be tied to

the the value of the dollar.

Now you might say um why do we need to

have comprehensive regulatory framework?

Well,

now you're you're well beyond my ability

to explain what's going on. There must

be some ways that this can go wrong and

having a good framework for for this and

allowing stable coins. I think the big

change is that it allows the stable

coins to thrive because people will feel

safer uh about that. And I know that

there's a benefit if you're making

payments overseas. Have you ever tried

to pay somebody a lot of money and you

had to use a bank and then you say, "I'd

like to send a a wire." and it's this

gigantic pain in the ass and they take a

big fee and you wonder why does it take

overnight to send a wire?

Well, if you add um these stable coins,

apparently you would just say to your

trading partner in another country, all

right, what's your account number? I'm

sending you some crypto and there

wouldn't be any charge. So, there would

be no middleman to to take a piece of

it. So, some of it probably has to do

with privacy and some of it has to do

with regulatory

um fiduciary responsibility, but we

don't really understand it.

Well, what else is in the news? Oh,

President Trump vowed to never allow the

creation of a central bank digital

currency, which would be a crypto that

would be sort of a direct replacement

for the dollar. So, he says that's not

going to happen.

Um, why? Well, there would be problems

with privacy and it would give the

government too much control because they

could watch what you're doing and they

could turn off your ability to do it. To

which I say, how is that really

different than the regular dollar?

you know that if the government wants to

look at your transactions,

they're going to need a reason, but it

doesn't take much of a reason and and

they can get some kind of approval to,

you know, totally look at what you're

doing with your regular dollars. So, do

you really have privacy when it comes to

larger transactions? No, you don't. You

don't have any privacy when it comes to

large transactions. If your government

is interested, if they want to look at

what you're doing, they're going to be

able to look at it. They always have

been able to. So, do I think that a

central bank digital currency would make

it that much easier for the government

to spy on you and control you?

I don't know.

Maybe. But I think if you think it's a

big deal, you probably don't realize how

easily they can spy on you now.

Anyway, so those are two things I don't

understand, but what I do like is that

David Saxs is in charge of um explaining

and getting changes in the government

that are going to be helpful for crypto.

And while I don't think that Trump has a

full understanding of this crypto world,

I do think the Sachs does.

So this is one of those cases where I'm

willing to trust the plan

only because I I believe that the person

in charge is smart enough and honest

enough that he would lead us in the

right direction. And uh we'll see.

Well, the story of uh the alleged Donald

Trump doodle on a birthday card to

Epstein when Epstein was 50. So that

would have been years ago, 2003.

Um the new wrinkle is that Michael

Cohen, who went to jail and he was

Trump's attorney and you know he loved

Trump when they were working together,

but then they became enemies.

like really enemies. And even Michael

Cohen, who remains, I would say, a big

enemy of Donald Trump, says, quote,

"During the 13-year time period that he

was close to Trump, I never heard Trump

mention Jeffrey Epstein, and over 13

years of being by the man's side, I have

never once seen him doodle. I never saw

him draw a picture. In fact, I would be

very shocked if Donald Trump actually

can doodle.

So I feel at this point

the the public opinion at least on the

right is that the Wall Street Journal

report is fake news and maybe they

didn't intend it that way maybe. But um

it doesn't look like the evidence that

they produced is reliable to me. This

looks like Now, uh, bolstering

the idea that it's a fake news, uh,

Trump is suing Murdoch and Wall Street

Journal for, um,

for producing that article, which Trump

would say they would know was fake.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be a problem. If

they did it accidentally,

thinking it was real, I think they're

safe. But if they knew it wasn't real

and they did it anyway, well then then

they might have some legal problems with

Trump. So he's got his lawsuit going. He

says he's looking forward to Murdoch

testifying.

All right.

But what would be the most predictable

part of the story? The most predictable

thing. The most predictable thing would

be that um we would someday find out

that the reporter behind the story for

the Wall Street Journal has some

connection to the Democrat deep state.

Do you think that maybe that's true?

Well, it turns out uh the Gateway Pundit

is writing

that uh according to let's see Real

Clear Politics and National Political

Correspondent Susan Crabshy

uh uncovered a damning connection

between the reporter who wrote that

story about the the birthday card and

the little drawing on it. Um it it's Joe

Palazolo.

Uh, and apparently he

was connected with, let's see, he

previously worked as a reporter for

something called Maine Justice. So, so

far you're saying, "Well, that's

nothing." But Maine Justice was a

publication run by Glenn Simpson's wife.

Have you made the connection yet? Glenn

Simpson

um was the founder of Fusion GPS.

Are you there yet? Have you made the

connection yet? Fusion GPS was behind

the steel dossier.

So, at the same time

that, and we'll talk about this, that

the uh Trump administration is putting

all kinds of pressure on the creators of

the steel dossier and all the fake

Russia collusion hoax. At the same time,

the Wall Street Journal coincidentally

produces a major story in which somebody

who was, let me say it again, uh, the

reporter who wrote the story used to

work for Glenn Simpson's wife and Glenn

Simpson was the one whose firm was

behind the Steel Dossier, which we know

is fake.

So,

don't you think we need an AI program

that will do this automatically?

Uh, I feel like it could do it because

these connections are always public.

Like, you can always find a story or a

connection or a LinkedIn profile or

something.

So I would love to know every time a

reporter writes a negative piece on

somebody I would like to know ah so

what's your spouse do where did your

spouse work before this where did you

work before this and did you work with

anybody's spouse that we should know

about

the the fact that any human being can

make these connections is kind of

stunningly

impressive but Um, someday maybe AI, who

know?

Well, CNN's Harry Enon, he's their data

guy. Um, he says that Republicans are up

a shocking 12 points

uh before the 2026 midterms. So, I won't

give you all the data involved here, but

the basic is that um CNN's data guy says

that this midterm election is not

looking like past patterns. Past

patterns are that whoever's in charge

loses the midterms. So if your if your

party has the president, almost always

the midterm elections where they're only

voting for members of Congress, almost

always the other team, you know, picks

up some dominance in that area. But

uh Democrats are way behind according to

Enton their 2006 and 2018 pace at this

point in the cycle. Doesn't mean it

won't change. you know, there there will

be a million hoaxes between now and the

midterms. Um, but it looks like the

Democrats are on the verge of the last

morsel of credibility that they had is

about to be extinguished

if things go the way it looks. Now, I

don't predict it. I I feel like it's bad

luck to predict it, you know, because

the the red wave didn't happen, etc. So,

I'm not going to do that. I'm not going

to predict it. I've never seen CNN be so

u I won't say panicked, but they're

quite aggressively

promoting the idea that Democrats are in

real trouble. Is that true? I don't

know. Maybe it's a plot to get more

Democrats to vote. I don't know.

But um you should not if you're a

Democrat, you should not be worried that

the Democrats will never be able to

recover from the deep deep hole that

they're in because they have a plan. And

their plan, as you know, is to uh do

more swearing in public so that they're

more like Trump and to do more

pretending that they're authentic

because the Democrats literally believe

that being authentic

is an act.

Now, I'm not a mind readader, so you

might say, "Scott, you don't know what

they're thinking." Well, I don't know

what they're thinking, but the way they

act and the way they talk suggests that

they believe that Trump is only

pretending to be authentic and somehow

pulling it off. Whereas,

so they believe that they could do the

same. Well, we could pretend to be

authentic. Let's just copy what he does.

Got it. All right. He does these

insults. We could do insults. He does

swearing. Oh, that's what the common

person does. We can do that. And they

miss they miss the entire point of it.

The point of it is that Trump has

largely been consistent forever. You

you'd find a few topics where over time

he he uh changed, but generally

speaking, Trump has been Trump

for almost my whole adult life. So yeah,

I don't think you can I don't think you

match his authenticity

unless you've got somebody who has a

long track record and then they are

consistent with their long track record.

Well, I guess I guess Bernie's authentic

because as stupid as his ideas are,

they've never changed.

So he's sort of authentic in a bad way.

Well, uh, Trump said in response to

some, um, press shouted, uh, question,

he said, quote, "I was the hunted, now

I'm the hunter." I feel like he's used

that a few times, but do you remember

um, the most mocked I've ever been over

a post on what was old Twitter? The most

mocked and uh abused I've been is when I

did a post that said if Biden is elected

that Republicans will be haunted. Oh my

god. That became like a national

headline and and people didn't argue it,

they just mocked it. It's like

look at this guy.

Oh my god. He's Can you believe it? Can

you believe it? This guy, this

cartoonist guy, this Dilbert guy, he's

saying, oh, he says that if Biden gets

elected, come on, come on, this is just

hilarious. He's saying this idiot is

saying that Republicans will be hunted.

Uh,

it's the best prediction I've ever made

because no one else that I know of,

certainly nobody in the public sphere

was making that prediction that early.

And then what happened?

Republicans got hunted. Some of us got

cancelled, which you might say, well,

that's different. You know, you had that

coming. No, we didn't. No, we didn't.

There were there were no Republicans

that canceled me. I didn't get cancelled

by one Republican. Not even one. No,

that was part of getting hunted. Um the

January 6ers

hunted

the How about Trump himself?

Hunted and literally shot. Hunted and

then literally shot. And that's after

all the lawfare.

So,

generally speaking, I would not be in

favor of a politician doing revengey

kinds of stuff once in office cuz I feel

like, well, that's a bad precedent to do

revengey stuff because then maybe the

other side will do some revengey stuff.

To which I now say to myself, Scott,

shut the up. the things that the

Democrats did to you, the things they

did to other Republicans, and the things

they did to the preferred leader of your

political movement, Trump, are so bad

that Trump absolutely should hunt them

down and that a large number of them

belong in jail. And you would not have

to make up charges. You would not have

to pretend something happened that

didn't. You could just use the public

record and start locking up people and

maybe that's going to happen. So, I'm

completely flipped on the question of

presidential revenge.

If the other side had done a little bit

of something bad and then Trump was

going to do something a little worse, I

wouldn't be in favor of that. But what

the Democrats did was so freaking bad

that you can't get worse than that. You

have to go to jail for that. You have to

go to jail. And I think maybe there's

some possibility we'll see some of that.

But yeah, he's the hunter now.

Um well apparently I didn't even know

this was happening but there's some big

success in getting some uh 10 US

citizens who were detained in Venezuela.

I didn't even know that was happening

have been released and uh credit is

being given to Secretary Rubio and uh El

Salvador's leader uh Boulli. So

apparently he was um helpful in in

making that happen. Now, I got to say,

Reuters is reporting on this. I got to

say, um, Trump is really good at

releasing American prisoners. Nobody's

ever been better at that. Would you

agree? Can Can you even think of any

president who was this good at getting

American prisoners released overseas? I

feel like he I feel like he's alone in

this

capability.

But I will give a shout out to uh El

Salvador's book Kelly because he plays

everything so smart

that it's it's kind of hard to even

understand why he's so good at what he

does. But, you know, with all these

countries who want to push back on the

US and they don't want to be pushed

around and they don't, you know, they

don't want Trump to be running rough

shot over them. Well, Boulli goes the

other direction and he basically, you

know, this is my interpretation, says,

"Wouldn't it make more sense if I have

this really productive relationship with

Trump and with the US, and wouldn't El

Salvador really benefit from really

being a tight ally with the US?" And the

answer is yes. Yes. I I feel like

it's such a smart and obvious play to be

our best friend that when you see the

other countries are playing it the

opposite way.

We cannot be humiliated by the United

States, we will try to stop them at

every every turn. How is that working

out? I mean really, how's that working

out? Whereas Boulli just says, "All

right, I'm going to lock up all my all

my criminals. I'm going to embrace uh

Bitcoin, which turned out to be looking

pretty smart at the moment. And uh I'm

going to work very productively with the

United States and be their best friend.

And if they ever need a favor, oh, I'll

totally do it. I'll do them a favor. How

smart is that? I mean,

I don't know who I don't know if he's

being advised or he's just that smart,

but uh I love I love watching an ally of

the United States just kill it. He's

just killing it.

Laura Loomer has a scoop. She's uh

talking to a whistleblower who says and

I'm going to wait for a fact check on

this because I I do think that Laura

Loomer has good sources and she's you

know making sure that she's uh you know

crossed all the tees and dotted all the

eyes. Most boring thing anybody ever

said. Um but the claim is that under

Barack Obama the the systems that the

computer systems that the government use

um was delegated

to Chinese foreign nationals located in

China as the tax support which means

that the Chinese

I'm having I'm having trouble believing

this is real because the implications of

it are so big that although I

think Laura Loomer has uh earned some

credibility with her scoops, you know,

they they seem to work out.

How could this possibly be true? Let me

finish what it is. So the claim is that

under Obama

um a backdoor was given to Chinese tech

people in China who of course would be

beholden to the Chinese government for

anything they can steal.

So in theory the Chinese government has

had full access to all of our government

systems.

full access to all of our government

systems for like 10 years

now. Is that possible?

How many of you think that's real?

I don't know. I'm sure there will be

some nuances to this like, oh, we had we

had this wall up so they couldn't do any

mischief or something. But at the

moment, the Laura Loomer's scoop is that

the Chinese government had full access

to all of our government technology

and that and that Obama must have known

it because he, you know, his

administration approved it. So, this one

doesn't make sense to me.

Um, there's probably something else we

don't know about it, but that's

happening.

All right, I'm going to ruin your fun a

little bit. You all know the big story

of the day that Tulsi Gabbard um came

out with uh some new information they

found which let's say um so the claim is

she did a long thread on X uh that for

months before the 2016 election the

intelligence community um had a

consensus view that Russia lacked the

intent and capability to hack US

elections.

Now,

the claim, if I could summarize it, is

that they have new documentation to show

that the Obama administration, including

Obama and including Brennan Clapper,

were fully aware that Russia did not

hack the election.

Um, yet they claimed that that Russia

did interfere with the election. So, the

claim is that it's a big conspiracy

theory. Um, no, that's the wrong word.

It's a conspiracy like RICO that people

were all in on this uh hoax and the hoax

was that that Russia was helping Trump

get elected, but they knew that it

wasn't true.

Um, there's something wrong with this

story, and you're not going to like it

when I tell you. I believe it's

conflating things

and what it looks like is conflating is

the question of whether um Russia could

impact

with cyber attacks the election

infrastructure.

So the the thing that the intelligence

community knew is that Russia uh there

was no evidence that Russia could get

into our election infrastructure. In

other words, they did not believe that

Russia was getting into voting machines

or databases and changing the result.

And so, because we knew that they

weren't getting into the infrastructure

of the elections,

it means that Obama and his team were

lying weasels when they said, "Oh, yeah,

Russia, you know, may have been behind

trying to help Trump jump." So, but

here's where I'm going to disagree with

how it's been treated so far, this

story. I feel like it conflates

the thing that I'm sure did not happen

because there's no evidence, which is

that Russia indeed did not directly hack

the voting machines or the databases.

But I don't remember that even being a

claim. Do you?

I remember hearing

Sorry, I've got allergies. Um, I

remember hearing that Russia may have

hacked Hillary's email and Podesta's

email and maybe something else, but

would you call those election

infrastructure? They're not, right? Um,

I remember hearing that Russia ran a

bunch of memes, some advertisement. Some

of it was anti-Trump. Some of it was

anti- Hillary.

Yeah. The the meme farm. So the meme

farm had nothing to do with hacking

anything. It was just memes. And then

there was a claim that uh

uh so there was a meme farm, there was a

hacking of the emails,

and then of course you always throw in

the um Maniffort was scamming some

Russian billionaire and he was scamming

him saying he would give him some, you

know, secret stuff and the only thing he

ever gave him was some uh dated internal

um polling.

So, but metaphor went to jail for that

and there was no evidence that Trump

knew anything about it.

So when Tulsi Gabbard says

that uh we have documents that show that

the intelligence community knew that the

Russians did not hack

the election infrastructure

that that fact disproves their other

claims that Russia tried to influence

the election.

Those are just different topics, right?

Because when I see the way the news is

treating them, the news is trying to

treat it like it's all one big ball of

the same thing. And that if you know for

sure that Russia or there's no evidence

that Russia tried to directly change the

vote,

that that is a debunk to the claim that

they hacked some email and it might have

affected the election. Probably didn't.

or that they had some memes on social

media that tried to affect the election

but probably didn't cuz they were so

minor.

Am I wrong? Uh I want to see your

opinion. When you hear this story,

doesn't it feel like they tried to

connect dots that don't connect?

I feel like there's nothing in this

story cuz I don't remember any time I

ever believed

it. Was it even was it even public? Did

Did the Democrats literally claim that

Russia hacked into our computer into our

election infrastructure?

When was that ever in the news?

Um, Cabo Mate is saying, "Scott, they

got rid of the report of no finding of

Russia collusion and then met to plan

the coup to unseeed Trump." Oh, they it

definitely was a coup. So, I'm not

questioning whether or not um there was

a Democrat coup and a hoax. That that is

for sure. What I'm questioning is if

this new information adds anything to

anything. I don't think it does

because all it's saying is that um the

IC community said no election

infrastructure was was successfully

hacked by Russia. Was that ever really a

claim? I don't remember that even being

a claim.

Do you know why that would not have been

a claim?

Have Have you connected the dots yet? We

were told that the one thing we know for

sure is that there was no way to hack

our elections directly, as in there was

no way for any hacker, be they Russian

or be they anyone else. There was no way

for them to penetrate our systems

because they were too secure.

So if the Democrats had been claiming

that Russia had the ability to hack our

election system infrastructure,

they would have had to admit that it was

possible to hack our election system

infrastructure.

And the entire time I remember the

Democrats were saying and the and the

fake news that support him were all

saying there is no way that anybody

could hack this system and not get

caught.

So if they had claimed that Russia had

indeed hacked it and not been caught,

that would make our entire election

system look unsecure. So, I I don't even

think there's anything new that's

important about this story, but we'll

see.

We'll see how it everything gets

conflated.

But yes, I do believe that Brennan and

Clapper and Obama probably belong in

jail.

My my current thing is that what they

did was a gelable offense and that they

did literally try to overthrow the

government of the United States twice.

once

um with the Russia collusion hoax and

then a second time with the January 6th

insurrection hoax which was probably

designed to make sure that Republicans

never rose again which would be another

form of election interference. So to me

there are two very obvious

welldocumented attempts to overthrow the

normal workings of our elections and we

know exactly who was behind all of them.

You know throw in Nancy Pelosi to the

January 6 stuff. So

we we've known forever that the steel

dossier was debunked from the start.

That's not new.

So, what I'm saying is that there's

nothing new. We knew that they knew that

it was debunked and that they went with

it anyway, which is why I say they

should all go to jail. They should all

go to jail. Um, but but we knew that

there's nothing new.

All right.

Um, have you noticed, some of you

probably have found this out, if you're

not following Mike Benz on X,

do you really understand anything that's

going on in this world?

I feel like if if Mike Benz didn't

exist, I would be so confused about what

the world really is and how it works.

But he has this uh almost unnatural

ability to understand insanely

complicated government things. Not only

in terms of all the moving parts, which

is

so impressive I can't even express it.

Um but he knows the history as well. So

he knows all the moving parts today. you

know, the names of entities and people

connected to things that you and I would

never know, but also how that connects

to everything in the past. So, when

there's one of these stories,

um, I have to wait to hear what he says

to get it in the proper context. So, um,

we need more of that. So, what he's

saying now is that the he's talking

about the DOJ motion.

So, the Department of Justice has

requested because a lot of MAGA

supporters have asked for this to unseal

the uh Epstein grand jury uh

transcripts.

Now, I'm no legal expert, but it seems

to me that that will be declined

that I don't believe that the court will

agree to uh release any grand jury

transcripts. And if they did, it would

be highly redacted to the point of being

useless. So, I don't think it's going to

work.

But then Mike Benz weighs in and he

says, "Uh, kudos to the Pam Bondi DOJ

for launching this motion so quickly.

Uh, not to rain on it, but if you simply

walk down the DOJ hallway to OPR, so

that's a department there, and published

the full AASTA transcript." Acasta was

the prosecutor in the the first Epstein

situation uh where OPR asked about

Epstein's intelligence ties. You'd get

us easy answers immediately.

What?

This almost looks a little too easy to

be true.

Is it true that Pam Bondi can literally

walk down the hallway and open the door

to the OPR? I forget what they what OPR

stands for. Um,

and asked for the document that would

probably answer all of our questions

about Epstein and his intelligence

connections.

Is that possible? And and why is Mike

Ben the only person who knows that down

the hallway there's a door marked OPR

and if you walk through it, you could

have all your answers.

Is that true? I mean, this would be so

impressive.

I mean, I'm impressed already with all

the stuff that Mike Benz knows about

everything, but if he actually knows

that there's a doorway you can walk

through to get the answer to that

question and he knows where it is and he

knows who has the authority to walk

through that door. Okay, that's I mean

that's just standing ovation time. So,

we'll see if that happens. But um I

would feel like if Mike Benz ever

stopped doing what he's doing, I would

feel unprotected.

I would feel like, you know, he's like

this watcher who who who just

understands everything we're seeing so

he can warn you about where the where

the corrupt parts are and how it works.

Now, on top of that,

he also has a take on Epstein that um

seems to be just a Mike Ben's take, but

it's it's uh I'm warming to it. And the

idea is that Epstein wasn't so much

about being a sexual blackmailer,

although he might have done a little bit

of it, but he might be better understood

as a um a financial manipulator and

money launderer who may have made his

services available to a variety of

entities. Some of which might have been

intelligence related and some of which

may not necessarily have been US

intelligence related. So, we don't know

that part, but uh I'm kind of warming to

that because that would explain why the

Epstein files

um are not having the secrets we

expected

because he's probably good at hiding his

his financial stuff. That was his

expertise that to hide the financial

trails of who did what where.

And the theory would be that he would

just know everybody who had money and he

would know everybody who needed money

for things that maybe the intelligence

community wanted done, but they didn't

want their fingerprints on it and they

didn't have a budget to do it

themselves. So they would go to Epstein

and then they say, you know, if you

could find a billionaire who would give

$10 million to this entity that sounds

like it's some charity,

we would use that money for things that

would be really good for the country. So

can you go get us that money? And maybe,

as Mike Benz points out, the the the sex

part of it might have been something

that was just good for convincing some

rich people, maybe in other countries,

especially um to work with them. So, if

you were some Middle East uh billionaire

and Epstein came by and said, "Hey, how

would you like to party? And by the way,

I could use a billion dollars

for, you know, some project or

something. Not to him, but maybe we

could have get a slice of that business.

Maybe that's how we got rich. So,

there's that.

Speaking also of Mike Benz, he asked

this question. Um, he said that Julian

Assange is a free man now, and he should

tell us what he meant by this clip. Um,

it was a clip where he talked about Seth

Rich. Um,

if you've ever seen that clip, it was

quite a while ago, but Julian Assange

talked about uh Seth Rich, the young man

who was a Democrat who got murdered on

the street. And some people said that he

was a source for Wikileaks.

And then Assange, who was at Wikileaks,

was talking about Seth Rich and he made

it really clear to the interviewer and

the the audience that Seth Rich was

their source and that that's why he got

killed. Now, I don't know that that's

true. I just know that Assange made sure

that you believed he was saying that.

Now, he didn't say it. He just made sure

you knew that that's what he was

thinking. So he he did the indirect

thing, but the indirect thing was so

clear that he very clearly said, "Yeah,

Seth Rich got murdered for being a a

Wikileaks source." So yeah, if if Julian

Assange is free to talk,

maybe we should find out what he meant

by that. But the fact that he didn't

tell us directly before suggests he

might have a reason not to do it

directly again. So, don't know if that

would work or not.

RFK Jr., the HHS secretary says uh the

US is going to reject the World Health

Organization's pandemic measures. So, I

guess the World Health Organization or

who um has some ideas for all the member

countries of what they should do if

there's another pandemic, but the last

thing we want to do is follow their

advice. So, it looks like we're going to

reject that.

In other news, there's a poll at uh FNG

Annuities and Life um that found uh

found that one in four Americans are

considering delaying retirement

um over economic concerns.

Nearly a quarter. One in four. Does that

sound right to you?

cuz I don't know about you, but when I

look at um the people I know who are not

rich, I don't know how they're going to

survive retirement

because

um if if you don't have any income in

and you're only relying on your savings

and your your social security, are you

going to be able to make that work?

You know, I don't know, but it just

doesn't look like most of the country

can afford to retire. So,

you know, I I know I'm not retiring, but

I don't know. I feel like it's more than

one and four.

There's a uh company called Protector,

which has a little app where you can

connect yourself to offduty police

officers who live near you.

and uh you can get some extra protection

that you won't get from your own police

who may have lost their funding if you

live in a blue city especially. So the

uh the postmillennials writing about

that. So that sounds like a good idea to

be able to spend a little extra to have

uh offduty police officers,

you know, respond if you can't get

anybody else to help.

Yeah,

you the cops of your yard.

All right.

And then lastly,

as I warned you at the start, um this is

the end of my prepared remarks. So Owen

Gregorian will be holding his uh his

spaces event on X. So, any of you who

want to go continue the conversation

about the news or other things as well,

I guess. Um, look for Owen Gregorian on

X. Um,

and uh I think I forgot to repost it,

but I'll do that as soon as we're done.

And um

I'm going to talk to the local

subscribers privately in a moment. So

the rest of you, I'll see you uh

tomorrow, same time, same place. and

locals, my beloved locals members.